...LICENSING LESSONS
FINALWARNING FOR SOMERSET DRIVER FOR USING PERSONAL VEHICLE TO CARRY PASSENGERS
ASomerset taxi driv- er has been given a “final warning” by councillors after he admitted using a personal vehicle to carry a fare-paying passenger. According to Somer- setLive, the driver, known only as Driver L, was brought before a licensing panel at Sedgemoor District
Council
alongside the taxi company operator, referred to asOpera- tor A. It emerged that Driv- er L had used Operator A’s person- al vehicle,
rather
than a licensed pri- vate hire car, to pick up an elderly lady from a doctor’s
surgery. Both the driver and operator were repri- manded by the panel, who warned that any further offences within the next
12 months
could lead to their licences being taken away. The panel met to decide whether Driver L could still be considered a fit and proper person to hold a taxi or pri- vate hire licence in view of the breach. It said that “public trust and confidence was vital” in private hire vehicles, and that the operator would be held to the same standards as the driver.
Driver L admitted that they had driven an unlicensed pri- vate vehicle and had not displayed their private hire badges while doing do. They said that they “accepted full res- ponsibility” for what they called an “exec- utive decision” to attend the pre- booked job using Operator A’s person- al, unlicensed ve- hicle. They said that they recognised what
that they were
doing was unlawful, but that their main concern had been for the safety and wellbeing of
the
elderly passenger, whomthey had been
contracted to collect from a doctors’ surgery. Operator A also admitted that they had breached coun- cil
licensing reg-
ulations in allowing this to occur. They added that arrangements had been put in place and “lessons learnt” to ensure that this could not happen again. The panel said that it “could not over-state the seriousness of this matter”, arguing that it was a criminal offence
which
“raised serious safe- ty issues” and could have resulted in “sig- nificant
issues” had anything insurance
befallen the driver or passenger. However, in light of the mitigation pro- vided by both parties, and the actions they had taken since the inci- dent,
the panel
decided not to sus- pend their licences on this occasion. Operator A received four points on its pri- vate hire operator’s licence, while Driver L received eight points on its driver’s licence. The panel said that both the driver and operator
“should
consider this a final warning”, adding: “Any breach of the regulations within the next 12 months
will result in them returning before the panel, when due consideration would be given as to the suspension or revo- cation of
their
licences.” Mmmm… In this instance does the punishment fit the crime? The panel had to consider “serious
safety
issues” and “signifi- cant
insurance
issues” – and yet these persons are given points and a final warning? At least
the panel
accepted a degree of vicarious liability on the part of the operator… that does- n’t always happen in every district. – Ed.
BURY DRIVER’S LICENCE SUSPENDED AFTER ALLEGEDLY ASKING IF FEMALE PASSENGER’S ‘PANTS CAME DOWN’
A taxi driver claimed he was carrying out a medical examina- tion when
he
touched a female passenger’s
thigh
and allegedly asked if her pants came down. According to the Bury Times, the cab- bie
told Bury
Council’s licensing and safety panel he was a former child wrestler and had been “trying to ascertain what kind of injury the com- plainant had” after noticing she had a limp. While the young Asian woman was sitting in the back of his car, he asked to look at her swollen
knee before touch- ing it and moving his hand up to her thigh. The driver’s solicitor, Mr Khan, said that there was no sexual intent and the com- ments about
the
woman’s pants com- ing down had been misinterpreted. But members unani- mously voted to suspend his hackney carriage/private hire licence for
events as there was no reason to dispute her honesty. The minutes add: “Even based on the licence holder’s ex- planation of events, his behaviour had been unacceptable and unprofessional and not of the stan- dard expected. “The
allegations four
months. He must also take a communi- cations exam before his licence can be reinstated. Minutes from the behind-closed-doors meeting state that the panel
had
accepted the com- plainant’s version of
OCTOBER 2018
were sufficiently seri- ous to merit due consideration and that itwas due to the complainant
not
wanting to proceed that a further investi- gation had not taken place and it is direct- ly relevant
that the driver to a
working role with members of the pub- lic.” The report also notes
accepted most of the “serious allega- tions” made. The panel was told that the complainant booked a taxi to take her from Bury, to her home in Rochdale and when the taxi arrived sat in the back seat. During the course of the journey, the li- cence holder allege- dly asked personal questions about the complainant and her family. On arriving at her home, he turned to face her and told her that in future if she wanted a lift she could ring his private number. She gave the driver
her number as she felt scared, and at this point the “medi- cal examination” of her knee took place. After leaving the vehicle, she immedi- ately blocked the driver’s number and told her taxi driver uncle about the inci- dent. He advised her to report it to tell the council’s licensing unit and she also gave a statement to the police, but did not take the matter further for fear of reprisals. The taxi driver, who has lived in the UK for 18 years and been taxi driver for three years, has no crimi- nal convictions.
He has 21 days to appeal to the Magis- trates’ Court. Mmmm… If you turn to thismonth’s FAQs you’ll see a longer comment pertaining to this story.
It’s
unbelievable that this individual was only given four months’ suspension; and of course if he’s appealed the coun- cil’s decision to the Magistrates’ Court he could get the suspension lifted. And yet he allegedly “accepted most of the ‘serious allega- tions’made”. Where is the logic in this sort of sentence? Would it be a suffi- cient deterrent? – Ed.
45
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88
